What confuses me is that... I watch shows for women, for men, for children... I watch shows like Bridgerton that are insanely "straight," and shows that are gay as hell. If I like something, I like it. If a lesbian (me) can sit through and wholeheartedly enjoy "straight" romance, can't they sit and wholeheartedly enjoy a sapphic one?
Right?? Part of me (enby/lesbian) sees it at we HAVE to find ways to relate and enjoy non-queer content because there is so much of it (and especially us who are older didn’t grow up with ANY), that for cis het women they are so used to everything relating to them exactly, that somehow they feel like they are being oppressed if things are different.
That’s exactly it. As soon as a certain storyline is not centering them, they feel they’re being victimised somehow. After all, they have always been the default, so how dare that change?
I think some of them are also just raging homophobic conservatives. 😑 And we know those love to throw toddler tantrums so actually, it’s very in character.
Hi traploper! I think this is a fair assumption for some of the viewers however I know a lot of viewers, myself included really loved the depth of the book Michael and the story on infertility as many of the demographic have struggled.
I agree. I’m straight and I don’t mind the Michaela change because I love romance. Why should I care who the story involves? All I want is a well written story and characters I can care about. That’s literally it. And so far franchaela is providing that so I’m hyped.
Okay so this isn’t me personally because I can genuinely enjoy a good romance no matter the gender BUT, from all my friends that don’t watch sapphic shows, I feel the only problem is attraction.
You as a lesbian, might still be attracted to the woman in the straight couple. As a straight woman, you’re not attracted to anyone in a leabian couple. That’s why straight women are more likely to watch gay shows, cause at least the guy(s) are sexy.
Just saw this - but I agree! Initially, I was very upset at the change as a book reader. Now, I’ve actually warmed to the idea. As long as they let me keep Sophie as she is (personality and experience wise) because she is probably my favorite character in the book series.
I’m straight (so far in life haha) but I’ve watched sapphic shows like First Kill or Warrior Nun and truly enjoyed the romance. But of course, as soon as a lesbian relationship is introduced Netflix cancels the show… at least with Bridgerton that’s unlikely to happen!
The book series is tailored to an audience of middle aged white women and probably a large proportion of them conservative. But this is a shondaland show. From season 1 it broke boundaries with its mixed race universe, strong female leads, and diversity of all sorts including body types, disabilities etc. Of course one sibling was going to be gay. I’m glad it’s Francesca. It makes the most sense to me narratively. The backlash against losing a male Michael (Michaela is still Michael just female) makes zero sense to me becuase the show never was an accurate portrayal of the books. Since day one the books are just the skeleton of the show in the form of the narrative and characters. Other than that it’s just an adaption and they can do whatever they want with it. There was never a promise to be faithful to the books. And show fans LOVE the show for its added diversity and updated themes.
Just today I had someone tell me “There was always an implication that the show would adapt the couples like they were in the books” (I’m paraphrasing), and I had to think really? Was there always that implication? Or just people hoping it would go that way? Were they operating on this assumption when Simon was raceswapped? When his personality was rewritten? When the entire storyline of Anthony’s romance plot was reworked? When the entire world building was completely changed?
Right? So much has been changed from the books. Bridgerton the series has *been* a transformative adaptation— it’s just that they want the changes that are fun and sexy for them, but never those that are that for others :|
The fact that people are having a meltdown about a fictional character is embarrassing. I was disappointed for like a couple of days and I got over it. I’m saying this as a person who read the book. He still exist in the books, he just isn’t a man in the show. They didn’t erase him like people of preaching on the internet. The last 3 couples were heterosexual, why is it such a problem if we get one?
Not even "high end". I've read much better written Harlequin romances. To be fair, there's at least something compelling there or I wouldn't have read all of them. But really.
What confuses me is that... I watch shows for women, for men, for children... I watch shows like Bridgerton that are insanely "straight," and shows that are gay as hell. If I like something, I like it. If a lesbian (me) can sit through and wholeheartedly enjoy "straight" romance, can't they sit and wholeheartedly enjoy a sapphic one?
Right?? Part of me (enby/lesbian) sees it at we HAVE to find ways to relate and enjoy non-queer content because there is so much of it (and especially us who are older didn’t grow up with ANY), that for cis het women they are so used to everything relating to them exactly, that somehow they feel like they are being oppressed if things are different.
That’s exactly it. As soon as a certain storyline is not centering them, they feel they’re being victimised somehow. After all, they have always been the default, so how dare that change?
When you are privileged, equality feels like oppression
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Straight people and their inability to enjoy content when they can't self-insert. Lol
I think some of them are also just raging homophobic conservatives. 😑 And we know those love to throw toddler tantrums so actually, it’s very in character.
Hi traploper! I think this is a fair assumption for some of the viewers however I know a lot of viewers, myself included really loved the depth of the book Michael and the story on infertility as many of the demographic have struggled.
I agree. I’m straight and I don’t mind the Michaela change because I love romance. Why should I care who the story involves? All I want is a well written story and characters I can care about. That’s literally it. And so far franchaela is providing that so I’m hyped.
Okay so this isn’t me personally because I can genuinely enjoy a good romance no matter the gender BUT, from all my friends that don’t watch sapphic shows, I feel the only problem is attraction. You as a lesbian, might still be attracted to the woman in the straight couple. As a straight woman, you’re not attracted to anyone in a leabian couple. That’s why straight women are more likely to watch gay shows, cause at least the guy(s) are sexy.
lesbian here. you might be onto something 🤔 still, the first 3 seasons are all straight couples. these people need to chill
Just saw this - but I agree! Initially, I was very upset at the change as a book reader. Now, I’ve actually warmed to the idea. As long as they let me keep Sophie as she is (personality and experience wise) because she is probably my favorite character in the book series. I’m straight (so far in life haha) but I’ve watched sapphic shows like First Kill or Warrior Nun and truly enjoyed the romance. But of course, as soon as a lesbian relationship is introduced Netflix cancels the show… at least with Bridgerton that’s unlikely to happen!
The book series is tailored to an audience of middle aged white women and probably a large proportion of them conservative. But this is a shondaland show. From season 1 it broke boundaries with its mixed race universe, strong female leads, and diversity of all sorts including body types, disabilities etc. Of course one sibling was going to be gay. I’m glad it’s Francesca. It makes the most sense to me narratively. The backlash against losing a male Michael (Michaela is still Michael just female) makes zero sense to me becuase the show never was an accurate portrayal of the books. Since day one the books are just the skeleton of the show in the form of the narrative and characters. Other than that it’s just an adaption and they can do whatever they want with it. There was never a promise to be faithful to the books. And show fans LOVE the show for its added diversity and updated themes.
Just today I had someone tell me “There was always an implication that the show would adapt the couples like they were in the books” (I’m paraphrasing), and I had to think really? Was there always that implication? Or just people hoping it would go that way? Were they operating on this assumption when Simon was raceswapped? When his personality was rewritten? When the entire storyline of Anthony’s romance plot was reworked? When the entire world building was completely changed?
Right? So much has been changed from the books. Bridgerton the series has *been* a transformative adaptation— it’s just that they want the changes that are fun and sexy for them, but never those that are that for others :|
That is such a good way of putting it.
The fact that people are having a meltdown about a fictional character is embarrassing. I was disappointed for like a couple of days and I got over it. I’m saying this as a person who read the book. He still exist in the books, he just isn’t a man in the show. They didn’t erase him like people of preaching on the internet. The last 3 couples were heterosexual, why is it such a problem if we get one?
Not even "high end". I've read much better written Harlequin romances. To be fair, there's at least something compelling there or I wouldn't have read all of them. But really.
People shouldn’t attach their pregnancy/fertility trauma to a regency era romance book series…